The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Still not a crime under FEC regs. Its not a contribution or in kind contribution and is specifically excluded from being counted as such by FEC regs so says the man who wrote them. Meanwhile the FEC is beign sued to force them to look at 84 MILLION dollars in illegal campaign contributions by the HRC16 campaign via illegal pass throughs of state parties.

Still not a crime under FEC regs. Its not a contribution or in kind contribution and is specifically excluded from being counted as such by FEC regs so says the man who wrote them. Meanwhile the FEC is beign sued to force them to look at 84 MILLION dollars in illegal campaign contributions by the HRC16 campaign via illegal pass throughs of state parties.

I am not a judge or jury and neither are you. But this affair that absolutely never happened did not occur in 2006. It was not until 2016 that Cohen took it upon himself to mortgage his property to make this payment - allegedly without mentioning to Trumpkin who did but did not at the same repay Cohen. This was done to save Trumpkin's family any unnecessary upset about this thing that never happened according to one version but according to Giuliani specifically to stop it coming out before the election... Well it seems pretty obvious given the timing that it was about the election so it may be upto a court to decide if could be regarded as a campaign contribution.

I rather think Cohen has been broken and spilled the beans. Apparently they were logging his calls including one with White House. Seems they may have him on money laundering charges too - quelle surprise. If he has spilled the beans it will get alot worse for Trumpkin.

Eric Schneiderman, legal eagle, crusader against Trump, champion of #metoo, defender of women... Oh no wait, actually a gf choking, booze chugging, two faced hypocrite who claims he's the law and threatens to kill his exes so he can keep beating them and calling them his whores and slaves:

Nope the FEC explicitly excluded such payments as counting. Further no one in Congress has been indicted for the hush fund payments they have had made.

As I understand there are things called "in kind contribution"? So Cohen, entirely off his own bat, mortgages a property to raise $130,000, creates a company and gets some dubious lady to agree not to talk about something that did not happen 10yrs ago days before the election because in Giuliani's own words "imagine if came out just before the last debate" - so specifically in order to help Trumpkin - and does not mention it to Trumpkin who nonetheless is repaying him and you are arguing that this does not count as a contribution? If that goes to a jury I do not fancy your chances.

As I understand there are things called "in kind contribution"? So Cohen, entirely off his own bat, mortgages a property to raise $130,000, creates a company and gets some dubious lady to agree not to talk about something that did not happen 10yrs ago days before the election because in Giuliani's own words "imagine if came out just before the last debate" - so specifically in order to help Trumpkin - and does not mention it to Trumpkin who nonetheless is repaying him and you are arguing that this does not count as a contribution? If that goes to a jury I do not fancy your chances.

Eric Schneiderman, legal eagle, crusader against Trump, champion of #metoo, defender of women... Oh no wait, actually a gf choking, booze chugging, two faced hypocrite who claims he's the law and threatens to kill his exes so he can keep beating them and calling them his whores and slaves:

He resigned. President Spanky, who has had women accuse him of abuse and is a self confessed pussygrabber not only did not resign, but also denigrated abused women by siding with their abusers at every occassion. Yet you have praise for Spanky. That makes you a hypocrite.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

Eric Schneiderman, legal eagle, crusader against Trump, champion of #metoo, defender of women... Oh no wait, actually a gf choking, booze chugging, two faced hypocrite who claims he's the law and threatens to kill his exes so he can keep beating them and calling them his whores and slaves:

I'm pleased to see you so animated on the subject of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. I'm sure we can both agree that any men responsible for sexual abuse of women have no place holding public office. We do agree on that.....don't we?

And I must say it's some pretty tepid stuff. Par for the course for powerful men of his era and downright tame compared to say, Bill Clinton.

Theres plenty of awkwardness, grabbing of boobs and butts and surprise kissing, but when the women involved told him to fuck off he did.

The only incident of real concern is the alleged rape of ivana, but she had this to say:

Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[1] In a July 2015 campaign endorsement, Ivana said: "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit."[2][23]

This is a guy who's adored by his children. I find it highly unlikely that he abused his partners well in private .

Then you get accounts from stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and what are they saying? That he was a monster?

No, actually one said she really liked him and he hurt her feelings by paying her, the other said he had her spank him with a times magazine.

Does this sound like a woman hating monster on par with the evil if a guy like Schneiderman, who slapped successive girl friends until their ear drums burst, who choked them, who threatened to kill them, who threatened to use the powers of his office against them, and who was coded out on alcohol and drugs every evening?

To me, the worst part of what Schneiderman did wasn't even the violence. It was the betrayal. It was the callous psychopathic manipulation and abuse of those who loved him.

With Trump, as far as I can gather, the closer a women got to him the better he treated them. One look at Melania and you know she isnt getting abused by anybody. One look at ivanka and you know she never saw her dad abuse her mom.

With Schneiderman, the closer the women got, the worse the abuse, to the point where they feared for their lives, for good reason.

If you two see equivalence in that, might be time to examine just how thick those partisan glasses have gotten.

As I understand there are things called "in kind contribution"? So Cohen, entirely off his own bat, mortgages a property to raise $130,000, creates a company and gets some dubious lady to agree not to talk about something that did not happen 10yrs ago days before the election because in Giuliani's own words "imagine if came out just before the last debate" - so specifically in order to help Trumpkin - and does not mention it to Trumpkin who nonetheless is repaying him and you are arguing that this does not count as a contribution? If that goes to a jury I do not fancy your chances.

The FEC test to determine campaign v personal is whether or not the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. DoJ tried and failed to get Edwards on the same thing. Powerful men pay to have affairs covered up. Cohen was not just a campaign supporter as in the Edwards case but a reimbursed long term retainer attorney.

trying to compare degrees of sexual harassment is not exactly a winning game.

suffice it to say that if Schneiderman did those things, he should be tossed out and prosecuted. i also agreed with Al Franken getting forcibly pushed out the door-- despite this being disadvantageous politically.

the dissonance is worse for the "religious right" and the "law and order/morals" types within the GOP. if you want thick partisan glasses, just check out the people comparing trump to King David, lol.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

And I must say it's some pretty tepid stuff. Par for the course for powerful men of his era and downright tame compared to say, Bill Clinton.

Theres plenty of awkwardness, grabbing of boobs and butts and surprise kissing, but when the women involved told him to fuck off he did.

The only incident of real concern is the alleged rape of ivana, but she had this to say:

Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[1] In a July 2015 campaign endorsement, Ivana said: "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit."[2][23]

This is a guy who's adored by his children. I find it highly unlikely that he abused his partners well in private .

Then you get accounts from stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and what are they saying? That he was a monster?

No, actually one said she really liked him and he hurt her feelings by paying her, the other said he had her spank him with a times magazine.

Does this sound like a woman hating monster on par with the evil if a guy like Schneiderman, who slapped successive girl friends until their ear drums burst, who choked them, who threatened to kill them, who threatened to use the powers of his office against them, and who was coded out on alcohol and drugs every evening?

To me, the worst part of what Schneiderman did wasn't even the violence. It was the betrayal. It was the callous psychopathic manipulation and abuse of those who loved him.

With Trump, as far as I can gather, the closer a women got to him the better he treated them. One look at Melania and you know she isnt getting abused by anybody. One look at ivanka and you know she never saw her dad abuse her mom.

With Schneiderman, the closer the women got, the worse the abuse, to the point where they feared for their lives, for good reason.

If you two see equivalence in that, might be time to examine just how thick those partisan glasses have gotten.

Yes, because you were there with Trump the entire time he interacted with these women, you know exactly what hapened.

Also, no one said Stormy Daniels and Karen Mcdougal were abused, so stop setting up strawmen. Others, such as Summer Zervos and Jill Harth, did, and they tok their cases to court. Many others, like Jessica Leeds and Kristin Anderson have come forward with accounts of how he has tried to force himsef on them. some of these accounts go back to the '80s.

In your world, choking is bad (and rightly so) but boobs and pussy grabbing are "pretty tepid", never mind the fact that when powerful people do them, the women concerned may feel just as helpless.

It is shameful and disgusting that you are trying to find equivalence between levels of sexual abuse, just because in once case it is done by a man you endorse.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus